TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Verden v. Coleman

Samuel Verden, Plaintiff in Error, v. Isaac Coleman

Verden v. Coleman, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 86 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 21, 1855
Judges
Campbell
Citations
59 U.S. 8615 L. Ed. 27218 How. 861855 U.S. LEXIS 666
Headnotes
This court again decides that a decree upon a motion to dissolve an injunction in the course of a chancery cause, and where the bill is not finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be1 reexamined in this court, under the 25th section c.f the judiciary act.
Summary
This casé was brought up from the supreme court of Indiana, by a writ of error issued under the 25th"section of the judiciary act.' The case is explained in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Campbell

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff filed Ms bill in the circuit' court of Benton county, Indiana, sitting in chancery, to obtain a decree to cancel a mortgage and the mortgage note, and also to restrain,, by injunction, the mortgagee from proceeding upon the power of sale contained in the mortgage until the final hearing, and from thence perpetually.

A temporary injunction was granted in vacation upon the usual conditions, which was dissolved, on the coming in of the answers Upon the motion of the defendants, by the circuit court.

From the order dissolving the; injunction there was an appeal to the supreme court of Indiana, where, after argument, the decree .of the circuit court was .affirmed. Upon tMs decree this writ of error is prosecuted.

This court has repeatedly decided that a decree upon a motion .to dissolve an injunction in the course of a chancery cause, and where the bill is hot finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be reexamined in this court, under the terms of the 25th section of the judiciary act of the 24th September, 1789. McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61 ; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448 .

The writ of error is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1859–1860: 11881–1882: 11895–1896: 11931–1932: 51935–1936: 11937–1938: 118592026peak 1931 · 5

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
John McCollum in Error v. Jenison Eager, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 61 (1844) 14
Gibbons v. Ogden, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 448 (1821) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list